First  Prev  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
11128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/13

Sadly, the context is as follows: 2 Peter 3:7-9 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Like isn't literal. As to the Genesis versus AnswersinGenesis gives an excellent point as follows:

What does “day” mean?
The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.1

Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom‘s meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, “evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.




If the general author believed that a “evening and morning’ is the true representation of a day when writing the Bible... how did they know that when God has not yet created a day? I know, I know, God handed down many of these writings to man, and from there these stories of the Bible were actually written down, but even then... it takes one man in the wrong to change these God sent words. Another thing, these books of the Bible were all set out in front of a large council, and all of the books were mixed in with many other books and writings that also were in the mix. After selecting the ones that best reflected the Pope's beliefs, they also said that the Bible was final, and could not be altered. This of coarse prevented them from furthering their religion many times, most well known was the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found later, that were supposed to be added in to the Bible, but were dismissed, since the Bible was already finalized.



Ok, now here is a greater problem, if it did not take billions of years for the Universe to be created, and
not Million of years for the Earth to be created... then how would Dinosaurs fit into the picture
in the first place?



There are definitely Dinosaurs, and according to you, you are interpreting the Bible off of other
people's standards. Those standards may be correct or incorrect. But if they are correct, then
the Bible would be flawed... saying that we cannot interpret the Bible's sayings of a day to
God reflecting thousands to us Humans, then there was no room for dinosaurs. I know that
you, Conquistador have dug deep through into research that supports your views, as I have
been similarly delving into the same research, as well as the opposing's side's research.

The problem here is that both sides have disproved one another... like I said with "Lucy", she
was a missing link, like you said, she was not since her bones were scattered in a great area...
and the links showed some of the people's interpretations of the archaeological trip that
underwent to retrieve all of those bone fragments. There were great assumptions that I saw
from those interpretations, such as it was wrong for the archeologists to imagine a skull in his
head, before actually finding it. It was a tool for searching for what they thought was there... If
it wasn't there, they wouldn't find it, and that would be that. The assumption was just using
many of the pettier arguments both I and you oppose. When you said in a much earlier post,
that the "other" Christians who just said what they wanted should not be used to counter your
own arguments, then I also expect you not to use their words when trying to use it to further
your claims.

As you know, not many Christians follow the same beliefs as you do. Your beliefs are in the
middle, as mine are, but like you... I am looking for an answer, or at least I am assuming you
are also searching for such an answer.

If you do say there is not any evidence of Darwinism, that is fine by me, since I am quite
skeptical, but much of what you are skeptical of is shown today as being true, since it fits in in
the entirety of the picture of the Earth's creation.

In any event, IF the Bible's context was not construed throughout history, then how is there so
many similar religions all of the same base off of the Jews that all claim the same thing as you,
and have about the same amount of proof for their belief as the next and the following.

Somewhere, there are many small errors, and a few large errors in every religion, but for one
religion to be thought of being 100% true is unrealistic, and highly unlikely. Science knows
that it is incorrect in so many ways, which is why in a true scientific scenario, you must first
test, then re-test, and even then, many others will test out you own experiments for themselves
to know that you did not lie in the textbook, when passing down your results.

I believe you as much as I believe other ideas of the world. I have been influenced by your
ideas, but I still know that religion itself is wrong, as the lifestyle of each religion, and their
culture are correct, and very beautiful at that.

I have not thrown out the possibility of what you believe, as I will not do such a thing...

From just thinking, and without proof, we cannot know of a God, but we can also know
anything of what our world is, we know nothing about history, science, literature, art... and so
on...

From just thinking, we know only what can be thought of in the form of a pure innocence of
knowledge. Though saying that, there is no human being that has not undergone situational
circumstances that have changed how they think. Knowing that, any context taken from
another imperfect human is also imperfect.

I cannot allow myself to believe what you say, as you cannot believe what I say.... so is it a
stalemate in communication? Is it a point, where there is no further progress? No, there is
progress, since we both have, I hope, allowed ourselves to be influenced.
It would be foolish for me to think that you would change your image of the world solely on
what I have said, given, many have become Roman Catholic, or Atheist after I talked with
them... That actually bothers me, that someone would unshield themselves to take what one
says so easily, except for the few that have come to a slow, and eventual realization, in which
case, they have been thinking for themselves, which is what any sentient life form should do.

Me and you have both thought much over this subject, and thrown words onto other's screens
so that they may read them. We have both shared our views, and in doing so, we have
achieved a context for each of our own beliefs. Instead of choosing sloth and ignorance, we
have delved deep into what may seem evil to some, but abstract, and new, and interesting for
me.

I have learned much, but in doing so, I now have another thought... I must find more evidence
to support what I thought to be a piece of my reality, which was evolution. I must find more
reason to believe it, although I already do accept it.

As I said, I do not believe on the same God as you, but rather, I believe in that in the case of a
God, I must be very general rather than specific for my beliefs, in the case of God being
different from what I think I know.

You know nothing, as I also know nothing, which is what makes us wise, yet showing opinions
so early is foolish, but being open to change while showing sich opinions is courageous. Now,
being courageous thinking we are right is stubborn, as doing the opposite is a submission to
fear.

To state your greatest weakness to others can be known to be trusting, or loyal, but those that
change themselves become wicked, and twisted by tradition.
For us to change who we humans generally are thought to be, is unfathomable. We cannot
relay our world to other people, quite yet. technology is lacking there as well, though we are
not too far off.

I have many discussions with both sides of many different arguments, and controversial
subjects. Now, have you also found a middle ground? A ground to build your world? Or is it
as literal and incomplete as the literature of the Bible.

We know nothing, so thus we continue our search...

For others reading this, hopefully you will take something from this, and use it for yourselves,
or for others.... I cannot really tell you what you should do other than use your true potential as
a sentient being.

Again, I share your thoughts...

Thinking of you,

-Emerald Mercy

























14034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/13
This doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, but a fun and very common scientific scenario for atheists who are 'too smart' for religion and view it in only as potential gains:

I have two boxes, you can keep one of them. The one on the left is empty. There is nothing. The one on the right is either empty or contains 1 Billion dollars. You have no prior knowledge of me, the boxes, and there is no possible way to deduce if the box on the right is empty or not.

Which do you choose?
5058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/4/13 , edited 8/4/13

EmeraldMercy wrote it would be foolish for me to think that you would change your image of the world solely on
what I have said, given, many have become Roman Catholic, or Atheist after I talked with
them... That actually bothers me, that someone would unshield themselves to take what one
says so easily, except for the few that have come to a slow, and eventual realization, in which
case, they have been thinking for themselves, which is what any sentient life form should do.


And I can also say I certainly respect you a lot more after your recent posts, and am grateful for your honesty towards me.

To your frusteration for people going either Atheism or becoming Catholic: In their desperation, they reject your premise of Deism (for the sake of this discussion I define it as the classical view that God is not involved in the affairs of men), since they are creatures of empathy and cannot see God being as apathetic to their pleas. To some, they angrily reject God in favor of not being constrained by moral dilemmas, and others run to the the Catholic church because they claim to hold the Oracles of God. While I firmly believe the Catholic church is its own form of weights via having to maintain your salvation, it is the way we are made.

As you've said, there is truth. If God is anything like us (and we learn by example/image of God) and if like us He likes to be reckognized, to be loved and worshipped, then it follows suit He would write us a book about Himself. Sadly, since you have disparaged the Word of God as being corrupted over time, then those people are left no choice but to treat God as either the villian (and run to Atheism) or as like the gods of the greeks, bumbling His way with His word and resorting to revealing truth to men over again, to maintain what He apparently is unable to keep pure.
10216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
♥heart-of-asia♥
Offline
Posted 8/4/13
I go to church every Sunday and I pray everyday.
5058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/4/13 , edited 8/5/13
ADDED: By the way, Creationists have never denied any of the existing data, including those dinosaurs. Answersingenesis actually has a pretty good thesis on the subject. One thing for sure, when the waters flooded the earth, the atmosphere would have drastically changed (seeing as the earth lost its huge source of temperature control when the water expanse above the earth fell), and ultimately when you consider human hunters as well, you get extinct animals.

Dinosaurs themselves mean "big lizards", so its not exactly hard to imagine why creatures wouldn't grow as big or live as long when the earth lost its huge influx of oxygen. It is said there are places you can go in the Dead Sea under the salt, that have a huge increase then the natural oxygen levels, and wounds heal much faster there.

I know its a common misunderstanding, but Creationists (along with their Deism-leaning Intelligent Design) and Atheists all look at the same data. It is how you wish to interpret the data where the differences lie. One group believes Millions/Billions/Trillions of years made the present earth, and one believes God made it in 6 days.

You will find that even our dating methods themselves are subject to subjective dating, like with Radioactive Dating methods, where the ranges can very tremendously.


]There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

There are patterns in the isotope data.

There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
“Bad” dates

When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.[9]

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[12] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[13] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?

The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a “good” date
.

Ironically, The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
16054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / new jersey
Offline
Posted 8/4/13
how i feel about religion , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty6q0hf6-no
Posted 8/4/13
But God is real though.
19761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/4/13

G1lgam3sh wrote:

This doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, but a fun and very common scientific scenario for atheists who are 'too smart' for religion and view it in only as potential gains:

I have two boxes, you can keep one of them. The one on the left is empty. There is nothing. The one on the right is either empty or contains 1 Billion dollars. You have no prior knowledge of me, the boxes, and there is no possible way to deduce if the box on the right is empty or not.

Which do you choose?


There are two boxes, one is full of bullshit and one is not. Which one do you choose?
22035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
Yes I am Christian but that doesn't mean I'm any better than one else on the planet. I respect other people's beliefs and I refuse to shove or force anyone else to believe in what I believe. If any of my friends or even somebody I just met told me that they needed help or wanted to know more about God then I would be more than happy to share the Gospel with them. And that is how I feel I should be
12 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
I'm atheist, but religion is a very intriguing topic for me. I'm pretty accepting of other people's religions, but it's infuriating to have people say that I'm "going to Hell" all the time. Heh, it seems like doing anything enjoyable sends you to Hell anyways.

And science, I agree, just makes so much more sense.

People who say that they're agnostic irk me though. I just consider them cowardly atheists.
19555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
74 / F / Zhiganshina
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
Religion is the practice you choose.
Faith is what will really move you.
Whatever you believe in is the center of you life.
But I do highly regard God and Jesus Christ in my life. I second myself to faith
11128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
Conquistador0

The info that you gave about isotope dating does show the flaws it has, but the flaws only can be off by certain numbers of degrees...

The reason why the dating works so well, is because we do not date an item only once... which would allow all of those flaws to affect the calculation of the date that an object was created or left behind. The Dinosaurs lived long ago, and the largest was Argentinosaurus, a colossal plant eater who's head was as large as T rex's entire body. These Dinosaurs could live in the conditions of higher oxygen of the time, but it is obvious the oxygen levels plummeted after an asteroid hit in the Gulf of Mexico. This changed the environment for Dinosaurs, and they died out... but such an extinction did not take place in simply a year, and definitely not in a week or seven days.

As a fellow Christian years ago, instead of depicting the world as others have interpreted it, I set out on my own, looking for my own evidence, and my own theories, and only paid attention to other's views to guide myself and influence my own views.

Saying that, I interpreted the Bible for myself as well, and believed truly, that in just seven Days to God, which is a morning and an evening to God, but not to man... he did create the Earth. The sabbath is still holy as God rested his Seventh day, as we are supposed to rest and praise him on the Sabbath day.

If you think this is not possible, then your explanation shows this, that God created Earth in the beginning, and created fish on the fifth day, and animals on the sixth, as well as humans. Now, if Dinosaurs were around, and their life cycles were not just one generation, but hundreds... how can 20 years * 100, so 2,000 years even be close to one day? Or assuming they didn't die out after being created, that they were living on Earth alongside Humans for a long period of time, they were never recorded in ancient cultures... Mammoths were, but Dinos were not... meaning dinosaurs were not hunted by man, rather, they were not around to prey on man, or be preyed upon by man.

Either way, Dinosaurs did not exist for such a brief period of time, they lived for Millions of years...250 Million years ago, the first Dinosaurs show up, not to say that also many other creatures lived and died before then as well... only about 250,000 years ago... which is 1,000 times less than how long ago the Dinosaurs lived. Now, carbon dating, and isotopic dating may be said to be flawed, but they can be off about a few thousand years, but not one million years. In about 1 million years, evolution can then be seen, but I am still looking at that, so I don't expect you to agree on that point.

One thing that I would like for you to agree on, is that your theory of the world, like many others, and my own, are not infallible, but rather they are considered infallible given that they don't have enough evidence for or against them to be considered infallible.

Now there is another problem... life on other planets, most recently, the discovery of microbes foreign to our own of Earth found on Mars... the other is that new life and new microbes have been found in sulphur rich environments, showing that either God is probably creating new specimen as some may say, or that maybe that life can appear as a rare occurrence.

In either view... there are many plot holes of the Bible, and I cannot blame God for it being wrong... and if there is no God, I simply cannot blame a non-existance. If he is there, and not interfering with modern life... then the modern miracles are magic tricks, but if he is here, right now, mingling with fellow human beings, then all of this means that man has not the aptitude to even reach a conclusion on this subject in the first place....

I have a view of the lost... and I wish to keep those views, for it allows me to talk about both sides, and show how I can relate on both sides, since I spend as much time reading the bible, as over looking scientific essays, as reading Buddhist quotes to live by, and so on.

I am lost, and in the new testament, I can't quote the story, but lambs tend to be herded by a shepherd who won't give up, not even on one lamb, thus allowing myself to be the subject of religious sway from ALL religions I can try to name... I forget many of the uncommon ones, but remember their culture and their basic beliefs... In this way, I can maintain a connection with Atheists, and Theists. I share a common ground especially with Christians, and Roman Catholics at that, since that is what I believed for a long period of time.

For me, it is wrong to put a foot on any common ground, except being lost, since you do not have a foot, anywhere. Being lost, and neutral allows me to be the target of many, but also allows me to be a referee of sorts... a judge that can assess every single thought, object, and action there is in this world. And no, I do not consider myself God either, as many others have. Likely, I do not throw out that someone who claims they are might not be...

In politics, I could really care less about Republicans vs Liberals, since I was raised as one, but my parents allowed me to also see Liberally, but I still jump in the middle... looking for a common ground both sides can stand on. Though, admittedly... the data we have for politics are much simpler than a religious debate.

You see, my friend... you can Praise God, and your God... and I can remain lost... in the shadows in the mist... for in the experiment one of the others have posted... (Though of course being a simple post) I would not choose a box that can be empty, full of gold, or full of poison... or the box I know to be empty, but rather choose to sit there, staring at the boxes... Allowing me to think of both, and to hope for another box to arrive... so that I can sit between all three, and again think, and hope for a fourth... then in the world of an isolated room and boxes that I can only empty one, I am assured progress in my own sentience...



Now, today is Monday, the Christian and Jewish day the world went through changes to be created by God. For me, it is a day that other people have given a name to differentiate it from other days, given a number seven, different from other calendars based off of a ten day change in name. The history and stories behind the names of the days of the week go back to ancient Gods believed to have been around, which the Planets of the solar system also do share...

For me, I know what I know... If I am wrong, I change what I believe in, and mold my world to match what I can know, but since I know one thing, I know nothing... as for everything else, it is what the eye of the beholder may think about what it sees, and nothing else. It makes life worthless, and very lively... it allows me isolation, or a social upbeat... it allows polar opposites to collide and fuse. Being lost is far from deism my friend, and the truest form of being neutral that there is... It is the innocence with knowledge, knowing all evils and gifts of the world and being selected from those evils and gifts of the world without holding them out before others.

Thank you for talking with me thus far, I still wish to discuss many matters with you... but I thought I would thank you, since I after reading this have found a title for what I am... or at least one that entertains what I believe in.



Thinking of you,

-Emerald Mercy















11128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
merpadrp

What are your thoughts of being "Lost"? Is there a reason for thinking there is a correlation to agnostics as there is one to cowardliness? Isn't it wrong to say that you have a regard and respect for religions though you believe in science since it is more logical, and then have a special little exception against those who think there may, or may not be a God? Agnostics are those that are somewhat lost... but not in a true relation... but that must be one of the closest titles that has ever surfaced over me.

I believe we both may think alike in many ways, making it easier to talk with you... but try not to show dissent for others in any case... as I also show now dissent for you... you're a thinker... and I admire that, but do hold off of a generalization against all atheists, theists, or agnostics... though, you can say what you need to me, since I must know more about what is thought of me.

One who will not temper their words are the most honest... but can also be considered foolish. You are not a fool, thus you are not honest... but you are polite with your dishonesty... unless you really do think less of a particular group of people... then you are honest, but impolite, and a fool, as well as a hurdle for society as a whole... adding to what others have added to your own words as an avalanche gains momentum to push back the mountain goers back down from what little progress they worked so hard upon.

Either way...

I am still thinking...

Thinking of you...

-Emerald Mercy










Posted 8/5/13
Religion is part of the control system of the false reality that many of you have been living in.
14034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/5/13

bensonc120 wrote:


G1lgam3sh wrote:

This doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, but a fun and very common scientific scenario for atheists who are 'too smart' for religion and view it in only as potential gains:

I have two boxes, you can keep one of them. The one on the left is empty. There is nothing. The one on the right is either empty or contains 1 Billion dollars. You have no prior knowledge of me, the boxes, and there is no possible way to deduce if the box on the right is empty or not.

Which do you choose?


There are two boxes, one is full of bullshit and one is not. Which one do you choose?


Depends on the NPK values along with the size of the box. Should have chosen a less valuable commodity to prove your point.
Alas, ignorance is bliss.
19761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/5/13 , edited 8/5/13

G1lgam3sh wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:


G1lgam3sh wrote:

This doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, but a fun and very common scientific scenario for atheists who are 'too smart' for religion and view it in only as potential gains:

I have two boxes, you can keep one of them. The one on the left is empty. There is nothing. The one on the right is either empty or contains 1 Billion dollars. You have no prior knowledge of me, the boxes, and there is no possible way to deduce if the box on the right is empty or not.

Which do you choose?


There are two boxes, one is full of bullshit and one is not. Which one do you choose?


Depends on the NPK values along with the size of the box. Should have chosen a less valuable commodity to prove your point.
Alas, ignorance is bliss.


A religious nutjob calling me ignorant? Now that's funny.

And don't lie, judging by your choices, you love bullshit and would take that box every time.
First  Prev  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.